NCKH

ATP-55
STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, we would like to express the deepest appreciation to our
supervisor Dr. Nguyen Thanh Sang for giving us the opportunity to work under this
project. He was a constant source of ideas, guidance and support throughout this
research study. We are also grateful for his careful readings and suggestions regarding
the writing of this report paper.
We also wish to express very special thanks other ATP’s research in International
Education Centre and University of Transport and Communications, for giving us their
valuable advice and providing environment and information to complete this study.
Finally, very special and heartfelt thanks to our beloved classmates for their
support, encouragement and sacrifice throughout the course of the study. However, this
investigation was conducted with the limit of time and constant idea resources, there
must be mistakes and lack of knowledge through this investigation, so we are happy to
gain the precious comment and useful advices from all of you, to extend and fulfill our
future research.
SINCERE THANK YOU!
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG i

ATP-55
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURE ........................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS..................................................... v
INFORMATION FOR THE RESEARCH RESULT OF SUBJECT ..................... vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I: FLY ASH REVIEW ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Back ground. ......................................................................................................... 3
2. Production of Fly Ash. .......................................................................................... 3
3. Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 4
4. Fly Ash in Vietnam. .............................................................................................. 6
4.1. Fly Ash statistics ............................................................................................. 6
4.2. Fly ash researching to reproduce and use in Vietnam. ................................... 6
CHAPTER II: MATERIAL AND METHOD ............................................................ 8
1. Materials and preparation. ..................................................................................... 8
1.1. Fly ash............................................................................................................. 8
Fly ash was taken from the Insecption Center For Building Materials .................... 8
1.2. Cement ............................................................................................................ 8
1.3. Soil .................................................................................................................. 9
2. Methods ............................................................................................................... 11
2.1. Physical and mechanical test for Soil. .......................................................... 11
2.2. Physical and mechanical test for Soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement ........... 36
CHAPTER III: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................. 51
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG ii

ATP-55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1:Sample oxide analyses of fly ash and portland cement...................................5
Table 1.2: Fly Ash from the thermal power plant from 2005 to 2020 ............................6
Table 2.1 :Fly Ash properties ..........................................................................................8
Table 2.2: Result of water content experiment .............................................................. 14
Table 2.3: Result of unit weight experiment .................................................................16
Table 2.4: Result of grain size experiment for soil .......................................................18
Table 2.5: Result of compaction experiment (1) ..........................................................23
Table 2.6: Result of compaction experiment (2) ...........................................................23
Table 2.7: Result of Liquid Limit experiment ............................................................... 28
Table 2.8: Result of Plastic Limit experiment ............................................................... 29
Table 2.9: Result of direct shear experiment .................................................................32
Table 2.10: Result of unconfined compression experiment with displacement calculate
by millimeter..................................................................................................................35
Table 2.11: Result of unconfined compression experiment with displacement calculate
by percentage .................................................................................................................35
Table 2.12: Water content of sample mixture: Soil+3% Cement+3% Fly Ash ...........37
Table 2.13: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash ..................37
Table 2.14: Water content of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash ............................... 38
Table 2.15: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash .........................................39
Table 2.16: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash ...40
Table 2.17: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 6% Fly Ash .............................. 41
Table 2.18:Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
with displacement calculate by millimeter ....................................................................42
Table 2.19. Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
with displacement calculate by percentage ...................................................................42
Table 2.20: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 6% Fly Ash with
displacement calculate by millimeter ............................................................................43
displacement calculate by percentage ...........................................................................44
Table 2.22:Comparison about compaction properties of 3 samples ............................. 45
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG iii

ATP-55
LIST OF FIGURE
Firgure 1.1:Fly Ash particles at 2,000x magnification. ...................................................4
Firgure 1.2: Typical ash colors. .......................................................................................5
Figure 2.1: Soil sample collection site ..........................................................................10
Figure 2.2:Equipment of water content experiment. .....................................................13
Figure 2.3: Equipment of unit weight experiment. .......................................................15
Figure 2.4: Equipment of grain size experiment. ..........................................................17
Figure 2.5: Aggregate curve of soil ...............................................................................19
Figure 2.6: Equipment of compaction test. ...................................................................20
Figure 2.7: Result of compaction experiment ............................................................... 24
Figure 2.8: Equipment of Atterberg’s Limits experiment. ............................................25
Figure 2.9: Result of Atterberg’s Limit experiment ......................................................29
Figure 2.10: Equipment of direct shear experiment. .....................................................31
Figure 2.11: Result of direct shear experiment ............................................................. 32
Figure 2.12: Equipment of unconfined compression experiment. ................................ 34
Figure 2.13:Result of unconfined compression experiment ..........................................36
Figure 2.14: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil +3% Cement + 3% Fly
Ash. ................................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 2.15: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash............39
Figure 2.16: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash ..40
Figure 2.17: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 6% Fly Ash ............................. 41
Figure 2.18: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
.......................................................................................................................................43
Figure 2.19: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 6% Fly Ash .................44
Figure 2.20: Comparison about unconfined compression of 3 samples. ......................49
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG iv

ATP-55
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials
PC: Pulverized Coal
FBC: Fluidized-Bed Combustion
ESP: Electrostatic Precipitators
LOI: Loss on Ignition
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG v

ATP-55
INFORMATION FOR THE RESEARCH RESULT OF SUBJECT
1. General information:
-Name of subject: Soil Mechanics
-Students: Nguyen The Vinh
Nhu Minh Tuan
Nguyen Thai Phong
Pham Dao Duc An
- Class: Advanced Training Program - K55
- Department: International Education Center
- Number of years of training: 5 years
- Supervisor: Dr. Nguyen Thanh Sang
2. Aim of subject:
From the result of this research, fly ash is highly recommended to use as transport
construction material due to its advantages such as increase in the maximum dry
density and unconfined compression as well as reducing environmental pollution.
3. Innovation and Creativity:
+Innovation.:
New research on using fly ash and cement to improve soil properties in Vietnam,
giving new way to treat this material.
+Creativity:
Giving the most effective test procedure to apply this material.
4. Result of research:
The research was performed to assess the effects of fly ash and cement with soil.
5. Contributions for the social – economic, education and training, security,
national defense and the application of subject:
Result of this research will contribute on environment (reducing pollution) and
economic (using waste material to improvement soil).
6. Scientific Announcement of students from result of research study:
None
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG vi

ATP-55
Supervisor's remark for the scientific contributions of students, who execute

this subject:
Students worked very hard to get a good results. The results can be applicable for
construction site in the future.
April, 15th 2018
Supervisor
Dr. Nguyen Thanh Sang
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG vii

ATP-55
UNIVERSITY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

INFORMATION OF THE STUDENT HAS MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF
EXECUTIVE SUBJECT
I. ABSTRACT ABOUT THE STUDENT:
Full name: Nguyen The Vinh
Date of birth: 28/12/1996
Class: Advanced Training Program - ATP K55
Department: International Education Center
Phone number: 0967852911
Email: nguyenthevinh280196@gmail.com
II. LEARNING PROCESS
* First Year:
Sector: Advanced Training Program
Learning outcomes: Very Good
* Second year:
Sector: Advanced Training Program
Learning outcomes: Good
April, 15th 2018
Leader
Nguyen The Vinh
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG viii

ATP-55
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aim and objective.

From the result of this research, proving that fly ash and cement are suitable to apply
as transport construction material in Vietnamese condition because of its environmental
pollution reducing.
The specific objectives of this study include:
+ To determine properties of obtained fly ash samples.
+ To determine the engineering properties of the natural soil samples.
+ To compare the compaction characteristics, shear strength, and unconfined
compression test properties of the soil before and after mixture with fly ash
mixtures.
+ To utilize fly ash as construction material to improve soil properties to reach
construction standard.
Significance of research.
Construction of roadways on soils can be problematic because soils typically have
low shear strength and high compressibility (Edil 1997). Current practice for
construction of roadways over soil subgrades mostly involve the removal of the soil to
a sufficient depth and replacement with crushed rock or preloading to improve
engineering properties. Chemical stabilization with binderssuchas cement, lime, and fly
ash can be under taken rapidly and often at low cost, and therefore chemical stabilization
is becoming an important alternative (Keshawarz and Dutta 1993; Sridharan et al. 1997;
Kaniraj and Havanagi 1999; Parsons and Kneebone 2005).
Chemical stabilization of soft soils involves blending a binder into the soil to
increase its strength and stiffness through chemical reactions. The binder is intended to
cement the soil solids, thereby increasing strength and stiffness. The binders are
generally added as dry solids. In practice, reducing the water content of high-water-
content soils to the optimum water content (OWC) is difficult and time-
consuming.Therefore, addition of dry solids and cementitious materials is preferable.
Thus, addition of a binder reduces both the water content and binds the soil particles,
SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 1

ATP-55
which results in an increase in strength and stiffness. Common binders include cement,
lime, fly ash, or mixtures thereof.
The use of fly ash as a binder is attractive because fly ash is an industrial by-product
that is relatively inexpensive, compared with cement and lime (Federal Highway
Administration 2003). Additionally, using fly ash for soil stabilization, particularly fly
ashes that otherwise would be land- filled, promotes sustainable construction through
reduction of energy use and reduction of greenhouse gases. Fly ash has been shown to
effectively stabilize soils (Ferguson 1993; Acosta et al. 2003; Prabakar et al. 2004; Bin-
Shafique et al. 2004; Trzebiatowski et al. 2005), but little is known regarding the
effectiveness of stabilizing soft organic soils with fly ash. Soils are known to be more
difficult to stabilize chemically than inorganic soils (Hampton and Edil 1998; Janz and
Johansson 2002).
Research methodology.
+ An intensive experimental works will be carried out in laboratory for natural soil
and treated soil (adding 3% fly ash, cement for each and 6% fly ash).
+ Compaction test, direct shear and unconfined compression test were conducted
concentrated to estimate the strength of soil before and after mixing with fly ash
and cement.
+ These tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM standard.

ATP-55
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Back ground.
Fly ash is considered as a waste of burning coal in the thermal power plant,
however, it can be used and is already being used outside of the metal industry.
According to the first edition of Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers in 1986,
the use of fly ash in highway construction has increased and new applications
have been developed. This document also provides basic technical information
about the other various uses of fly ash in highway construction.
Fly ash has been used in roadways and interstate highways since the early
1950s. In 1974, the Federal Highway Administration encouraged the use of fly
ash in concrete pavement with Notice N 5080.4, which urged states to allow
partial substitution of fly ash for cement whenever feasible. In addition, in
January 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency published federal
comprehensive procurement guidelines for cement and concrete containing fly
ash to encourage the utilization of fly ash and establish compliance deadlines.
For environmental benefits, fly ash utilization, especially in concrete, has
significant environmental benefits including:
(1) increasing the life of concrete roads and structures by improving concrete
durability from temperature, hydraulics, mechanics,...
(2) net reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas and other adverse air
emissions when fly ash is used to replace or displace manufactured cement
(3) reduction in amount of coal combustion products that must be disposed
in landfills
(4) conservation of other natural resources and materials.
2. Production of Fly Ash.
Fly ash is produced from the combustion of coal in electric utility or
industrial boilers. There are four basic types of coal-fired boilers: pulverized coal
(PC), stoker-fired or traveling grate, cyclone, and fluidized-bed combustion
(FBC) boilers. The PC boiler is the most widely used, especially for large electric

ATP-55
generating units. The other boilers are more common at industrial or

cogeneration facilities. Fly ash is captured from the flue gases using electrostatic
precipitators (ESP) or in filter fabric collectors, commonly referred to as bag
houses. The physical and chemical characteristics of fly ash vary among
combustion methods, coal source, and particle shape.
3. Characteristics
 Size and Shape:
Fly ash is typically finer than Portland cement and lime. Fly ash consists of
silt-sized particles which are generally spherical, typically ranging in size
between 10 and 100 micron (Figure 1-1). These small glass spheres improve the
fluidity and workability of fresh concrete. Fineness is one of the important
properties contributing to the pozzolanic reactivity of fly ash.
Figure 1.1:Fly Ash particles at 2,000x magnification.

 Chemistry.
Fly ash consists primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum iron and calcium.
Magnesium, potassium, sodium, titanium, and sulfur are also present to a lesser
degree.
When used as a mineral admixture in concrete, fly ash is classified as either

Class C or Class F ash based on its chemical composition. AASHTO M 295
[ASTM C 618] defines the chemical composition of Class C and Class F fly ash.

ATP-55
Class C ashes are generally derived from sub-bituminous coals and consist
primarily of calcium alumino-sulfate glass, as well as quartz, tricalcium
aluminate, and free lime (CaO). Class C ash is also referred to as high calcium
fly ash because it typically contains more than 20 percent CaO.
Class F ashes are typically derived from bituminous and anthracite coals and
consist primarily of an alumino-silicate glass, with quartz, mullite, and magnetite
also present. Class F, or low calcium fly ash has less than 10 percent CaO.
Table 1.1:Sample oxide analyses of fly ash and portland cement.
Compounds Fly Ash Class F Fly Ash Class C Portland Cement
SiO2 55 40 23
Al2O3 26 17 4
Fe2O3 7 6 2
CaO 9 24 64
MgO 2 5 2
SO3 1 3 2
Color. Fly ash can be tan to dark gray, depending on its chemical and mineral
constituents. Tan and light colors are typically associated with high lime content.
A brownish color is typically associated with the iron content. A dark gray to
black color is typically attributed to an elevated unburned carbon content. Fly ash
color is usually very consistent for each power plant and coal source.
Firgure 1.2: Typical ash colors.

ATP-55
4. Fly Ash in Vietnam.

4.1. Fly Ash statistics
Today, most of the thermal power station in Vietnam are in the North,
because most of the coal are reserves here. The total capacity of power plant
based on basic additional charge project was 4.250 MW in 2010, 6.240 MW in
2015 and it will be 7.240 MW in 2020. In those stations, the amount of waste
produced is huge; 20% of them is single slag which stay in bottom of fire kiln;
the rest will fly out to the environment is fly ash.
Table 1.2: Fly Ash from the thermal power plant from 2005 to 2020
Amount of coal
Amount of fly ash
Capacity consumption
No Year produced
(MW) (Million
(Million tons/year)
tons/year)
1 2005 1.450 4,35 1,30 - 1,52
2 2010 4.250 12,75 3,82 - 4,46

3 2015 6.240 18,72 5,61 - 6,55
4 2020 7.240 21,72 6,51 - 7,60
4.2. Application of fly ash in Vietnam.

Back to the 80s of the previous century, Electric power 1 company combine
with Mine and Geo university did a research in fly ash from the Cao Ngan
thermal power station (Thai Nguyen) and Pha Lai thermal power station (Hai
Duong). All the researchs did in the laboratory and the main object was
collecting the coal still remain in the waste. Therefore, it limited the fly ash
application in industry at that time.
In the early of 90, the united of cement business carried on the research in
Pha Lai thermal power station. On 25th of March 1993, 1.200 tons fly ash was
sent to Hoang Thach cement factory to produce. Base on the researching result,
Ministry of Construction allowed to use Pha Lai fly ash as an additive for cement

ATP-55
in Hoang Thach, Bim Son and Hai Phong factory. The proportion can not be
over 15% and the MKN content must be less than 11%.
From 1997, fly ash was applied in some canals, hydroelectricity plants, and
the other civil contructions: Bai Thuong dam (Thanh Hoa), Tan Giang dam
(Ninh Thuan), Long Song dam (Binh Thuan),... These constructions require the
fly ash with MKN content less than 6% and Wa less then 3%. At the same time,
Vietnam Academy of Material combine with Vietnam Acedemy of Science and
Technology to test the fly ash behavior for the transport construction. For some
objective reasons, this project did not carry out till now.

ATP-55
CHAPTER II
MATERIAL AND METHOD
This chapter discusses the methods and laboratory procedures utilized in this
research to characterize the slag material, the lateritic soil and the lateritic soil-slag mix.
The methods include physical characterization techniques and laboratory tests
techniques.
1. Materials and preparation.
1.1. Fly ash
Fly ash was taken from Vinh Tan’s thermal power plan, Binh Thuan provine.
Figure 2.1.Fly ash in Vinh Tan

Table 2.1 :Fly Ash properties
Results
Characteristics Unit
TN – TB62 TN – TBML
SiO2 55,66 55,53

Na2O 1,24 1,21
Al2O3 % 28,39 28,71
CaO 3,116 2,102
Fe2O3 3,141 3,410
Recommentation: Base on the statistics, the fly ash can be defined as Class F according
to ASTM C618 and ASTM C311.
1.2. Cement
ATP-55
Table 2.2: Cement use for this research is from the But Son PC40’s cement
Characteristics Test methods Results
Strength activity index percent of control (Mpa) :
TCVN
+ 7 days 23.7
6016: 2011
+ 28 days 43.5
Setting time (min) :
TCVN
+ Begin 52
6017: 1995
+ Finish 356
Specific gravity (g/cm3) TCVN 3,1

4030: 2003
Specific surface Blaine (cm2/g) TCVN 3380

6017: 2003
Table 2.3: Chemical components of But Son PC40’s cement
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 Na2O K2 O

21.49 5.40 3.49 63.56 1.40 1.65 0.15 0.70
Table 2.4: Mineral components of But Son PC40’s cement

C3S C2S C3A C4AF
49.46 24.30 8.40 10.62
1.3. Sand
Undistured sample used in this research work was collected from the north
of Phan Thiet city , Binh Thuan provine.

ATP-55
Figure 2.1: Soil sample collection site

They were collected at a depth not less 0.5 m from the ground, after removing a
topsand and were stored, kept dry in bags in the Materials laboratory of Hanoi
University of Transport and Communication.
Table 2.5: Mineral component of sand
Characteristics Content (%)
Quartz – SiO2 89 – 91
Felspat – K0.5Na0.5AlSi3O8 ≤1
Illit – KAl2[AlSi3O10](OH)2 ≤1
Kaolinit + Clorit 5–7
Gơtit – Fe2O3.H2O 1–2

ATP-55
2. Methods
Sand samples before and after mixing with the additive were conducted to determine
physical and machanical properties.
Table 2.3:
Experimen Standard referenes Purpose
Determine the percent of
ASTM D 422 different grain sizes containd
Physical test
Grain size
within soil.
Determine the water (moisture)
Water content ASTM D 2216
content of soil.
Determine the in-place density
Unit weight ASTM D 2937-00
of soil.
Determine the relationship
ASTM D 698 between the moisture content
Compaction and the dry density of soil and
the mixture of soil with cement
Mechanical test
and fly ash.

Determine the unconfined
Unconfined ASTM D 1883-05 compressive strength of soil
compression ASTM D 4429 and the mixture of soil with
cement and fly ash.
Determine tensile strength of
Splitting tensile
ASTM C 496 aggregate material bonded by
strength
adhesive binders.
2.1. Physical and mechanical test for Soil.

2.1.1. Water content
 Purpose:

ATP-55
This test is performed to determine the water (moisture) content of soils. The
water content is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the mass of “pore” or
“free” water in a given mass of soil to the mass of the dry soil solids.
 Standard Reference:
ASTM D 2216 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures.
 Significance:
For many soils, the water content may be an extremely important index used
for establishing the relationship between the way a soil behaves and its properties.
The consistency of a fine-grained soil largely depends on its water content. The
water content is also used in expressing the phase relationships of air, water, and
solids in a given volume of soil.
 Equipment:
(1) Drying oven.
(2) Balance.
(3) Moisture can.
(4) Spatula

ATP-55
Figure 2.2:Equipment of water content experiment.

 Test Procedure:
(1) Record the moisture can and lid number. Determine and record the mass of an
empty, clean, and dry moisture can with its lid (MC).
(2) Place the moist soil in the moisture can and secure the lid. Determine and record
the mass of the moisture can (now containing the moist soil) with the lid (MCMS).
(3) Remove the lid and place the moisture can (containing the moist soil) in the drying
oven that is set at 105 °C. Leave it in the oven overnight.
(4) Remove the moisture can. Carefully but securely, replace the lid on the moisture
can using gloves, and allow it to cool to room temperature. Determine and record the
mass of the moisture can and lid (containing the dry soil) (MCDS).
(5) Empty the moisture can and clean the can and lid.
 Data Analysis:
(1) Determine the mass of soil solids.
MS = MCDS – MSC (eq. 3.1)
(2) Determine the mass of pore water.

MW = MCMS – MCDS (eq. 3.2)

ATP-55
(3) Determine the water content.

𝑀𝑊
w= × 100 (eq. 3.3)
𝑀𝑆
Where: MS: mass of sand solids (g)

Mw: mass of water (g)
MCDS: mass of can and lid + dry sand (g)
MCMS: mass of can and lid + moist sand (g)
MSC: mass of can and lid (g)
 Experiment data:
Table 2.4: Result of water content experiment
Moisture can and lid number 1 2
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 25.765 14.491
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g)
42.956 38.138
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 39.782 33.411
MS = Mass of soil solids (g) 14.017 18.92
MW = Mass of pore water (g) 3.174 4.727
w = Water content, w% 22.64 24.98
Wave = Mean water content, w % 23.8
2.1.2. Unit weight
 Purpose:
This lab is performed to determine the in-place density of undisturbed soil
obtained by pushing or drilling a thin-walled cylinder. The bulk density is the
ratio of mass of moist soil to the volume of the soil sample, and the dry density
is the ratio of the mass of the dry soil to the volume the soil sample.
ASTM D 2937-00 – Standard Test for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive-
Cylinder Method.
 Significance:

ATP-55
This test is used to determine the in-place density of soils. This test can also be
used to determine density of compacted soils used in the construction of structural
fills, highway embankments, or earth dams. This method is not recommended for
organic or friable soils.
 Equipment:
Straightedge, Balance, Moisture can, cylindrical container, Drying oven,
Vernier caliper.
Figure 2.3: Equipment of unit weight experiment.

 Test procedure:
(1) Determine and record the length (L), diameter (D) and mass (𝑀𝐶) of the cylindrical
container.
(2) Put the cylindrical container into soil sample until they are filled with soil.
(3) Carefully use the straightedge to trim off the soil so that it is completely even with
the container.
(3) Determine and record the mass of the cylindrical container with soil (𝑀𝐶𝑆𝑀).
(4) Determine and record the moisture content of the soil (w) (See Experiment water
content).
 Data analysis:
(1) Determine the moisture content as in Experiment 1
(2) Determine the volume of the soil sample
𝜋𝐷 2 𝐿
V= 𝑐𝑚3 (eq. 3.4)
4

ATP-55
(3) Calculate bulk density (𝜌𝑆) of soil

M𝑆
𝜌𝑆 = (𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 ) or 𝛾 𝑆 = 𝜌𝑆 𝑔 (eq. 3.5)
V
(4) Calculate dry density (𝜌𝑑) of soil

ρs
𝜌𝑑 = (𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 ) or 𝛾𝑑 = 𝜌𝑑𝑔 (eq. 3.6)
1+w
+ Length of the cylindrical container (L): 1,99cm
+ Diameter of the cylindrical container (D): 6,17mm
+Volume of the cylindrical container (V): 59.5 cm3
Table 2.5: Result of unit weight experiment
Container number 1 2 Mean
Moisture can and lid number 12 21
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 167.44 169.99
w = Water content, w% 23.8
Dry unit weight (g/cm3) 1.68 1.72 1.7
2.1.3. Grain size analysis
 Purpose:
This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes
contained within a soil. The sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution
of the coarser, larger-sized particles.
ASTM D 422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.
 Significance:
The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of soil.
Grain size analysis provides the grain size distribution, and it is required in
classifying the soil.
 Equipment:
Balance, set of sieves with diameters 10mm, 5mm, 2mm, 1mm, 0.5mm,
0.25mm, 0.1mm, 0.075mm; cleaning brush, porcelain mortar, tray, soil container,
sieve shaker machine.

ATP-55
Figure 2.4: Equipment of grain size experiment.

 Test Procedure:
(1) Put the samples in the drier and set the temperature to 60℃ till they are totally
dried.
(2) Record the weight of the container then take 500g of the dry sample.
(3) Make sure that all the sieves are clean, and assemble them in the descending order
of sieve diameters (10mm sieve at top and 0.075mm sieve at bottom). Place the pan
below 0.075mm sieve. Carefully pour the soil sample into the top sieve and place
the cap over it.
(4) Place the sieve stack in the mechanical shaker and shake for 10 minutes.
(5) Remove the stack from the shaker and carefully weigh the retained soil with the
container. In addition, remember to weigh and record the weight of the retained soil
the bottom pan.

ATP-55
 Data analysis:
(1) Obtain the mass of soil retained on each sieve by subtracting the weight of the
container from the mass of the container + retained soil, and record this mass as the
weight retained on the data sheet. The sum of these retained masses should be
approximately equals the initial mass of the soil sample. A loss of more than two
percent is unsatisfactory.
(2) Calculate the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight retained on
each sieve by the original sample mass.
(3) Calculate the percent passing (or percent finer) by starting with 100 percent and
subtracting the percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
(4) Make a figure plot of grain size vs. percent finer.
Weight of Container: 222.60 grams
Wt. Container + Dry Soil: 722.60 grams
Wt. of Dry Sample: 500.00 grams
Table 2.6: Result of grain size experiment for soil
Mass of
Mass of
Sieve + Soil Percent Percent
Sieve Diameter empty
soil retained retained passing
number (mm) sieve
retained (g) (%) (%)
(g)
(g)
1 5 356 356 0 0.00 100.00
2 2.5 342 342 0 0.00 100.00
3 1.25 332.6 333.3 0.7 0.10 99.90
4 0.63 310 316.23 6.23 0.89 99.11
5 0.315 289 341.6 52.6 7.51 92.49
6 0.14 263 474.03 211.03 30.13 69.87
7 0.075 293.7 697.69 403.99 57.68 42.32
Pan ---- 497.5 523.34 25.84 3.69 0.00
Sum= 700.39 100.00

ATP-55
Particle Size Distribution Curve
99.11 99.90 100.00 100.00

92.49
Percent passing ( % by weight)
69.87
42.32
0.01 0.1 1 10
Diameter (mm)
Figure 2.5: Aggregate curve of soil

2.1.4. Compaction
 Purpose:
This laboratory test is performed to determine the relationship between the moisture
content and the dry density of a soil for a specified compactive effort. The compactive
effort is the amount of mechanical energy that is applied to the soil mass. Several
different methods are used to compact soil in the field, and some examples include
tamping, kneading, vibration, and static load compaction. This laboratory will employ
the tamping or impact compaction method using the type of equipment and methodology
developed by R. R. Proctor in 1933, therefore, the test is also known as the Proctor test.
ASTM D 698 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction. Characteristics
of Soil Using Standard Effort (600 KN-m/m3).
ASTM D 1557 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics
of Soil Using Modified Effort (2,700 KN-m/m3).
 Significance:

ATP-55
Mechanical compaction is one of the most common and cost effective means of
stabilizing soils. An extremely important task of geotechnical engineers is the
performance and analysis of field control tests to assure that compacted fills are meeting
the prescribed design specifications. Design specifications usually state the required
density (as a percentage of the “maximum” density measured in a standard laboratory
test), and the water content. In general, most engineering properties, such as the strength,
stiffness, resistance to shrinkage, and imperviousness of the soil, will improve by
increasing the soil density. The optimum water content is the water content that results
in the greatest density for a specified compactive effort. Compacting at water contents
higher than (wet of ) the optimum water content results in a relatively dispersed soil
structure (parallel particle orientations) that is weaker, more ductile, less pervious,
softer, more susceptible to shrinking, and less susceptible to swelling than soil
compacted dry of optimum to the same density. The soil compacted lower than (dry of)
the optimum water content typically results in a flocculated soil structure (random
particle orientations) that has the opposite characteristics of the soil compacted wet of
the optimum water content to the same density.
 Equipment:
Molds, Manual rammer, Extruder, Balance, Drying oven, Mixing pan, Trowel,
500mm-diameter sieve, Moisture cans, Graduated cylinder, Straight Edge.
Figure 2.6: Equipment of compaction test.

ATP-55
 Test procedure:
(1) Take a sufficient quantity of air-dried soil in large mixing pan.. Pulverize the soil
and run it through the 5mm-diameter sieve.
(2) Determine the weight of the soil sample as well as the weight of the compaction
mold with its base (without the collar) by using the balance and record the weights.
(3) Compute the amount of initial water to add by the following method:
(a) Assume water content for the first test to be 8 percent.
(b) Compute water to add from the following equation:
(𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠)8
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑑𝑑 (𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑙) = (eq. 3.7)
100
Where “water to add” and the “soil mass” are in grams. Remember that a gram of water
is equal to approximately one milliliter of water.
(4) Measure out the water, add it to the soil, and then mix it thoroughly into the soil
using the trowel until the soil gets a uniform color.
(5) Assemble the compaction mold to the base, place some soil in the mold and compact
the soil in the number of equal layers specified by the type of compaction method
employed. The number of drops of the rammer per layer is also dependent upon the type
of mold used (See Table 3.4). The drops should be applied at a uniform rate not
exceeding around 1.5 seconds per drop, and the rammer should provide uniform
coverage of the specimen surface. Try to avoid rebound of the rammer from the top of
the guide sleeve.
In this experiment, we set the number of drops of the rammer to 25 and use automatic
rammer.
(6) The soil should completely fill the cylinder and the last compacted layer must extend
slightly above the collar joint. If the soil is below the collar joint at the completion of
the drops, the test point must be repeated. (Note: For the last layer, watch carefully, and
add more soil after about 10 drops if it appears that the soil will be compacted below the
collar joint.
(7) Carefully remove the collar and trim off the compacted soil so that it is completely
even with the top of the mold using the trowel. Replace small bits of soil that may fall
out during the trimming process.

ATP-55
(8) Weigh the compacted soil while it’s in the mold and to the base, and record the
mass. Determine the wet mass of the soil by subtracting the weight of the mold and base.
(9) Remove the soil from the mold using a mechanical extruder and take soil moisture
content samples from the top and bottom of the specimen. Fill the moisture cans with
soil and determine the water content.
(10) Place the soil specimen in the large tray and break up the soil until it appears
visually as if it will pass through the 5mm-diameter sieve, add 2 percent more water
based on the original sample mass, and re-mix as in step 4. Repeat steps 5 through 9
until, based on wet mass, a peak value is reached followed by two slightly lesser
compacted soil masses.
 Data analysis:
(1) Calculate the moisture content of each compacted soil specimen by using the average
of the two water contents.
(2) Compute the wet density in grams per cm3 of the compacted soil sample by dividing
the wet mass by the volume of the mold used.
(3) Compute the dry density using the wet density and the water content determined in
step 1. Use the following formula:
ρd=ρS/(1+w) (eq. 3.8)
where: w = moisture content in percent divided by 100, and ρ= wet density in grams per
cm3.
(4) Plot the dry density values on the y-axis and the moisture contents on the x-axis.
Draw a smooth curve connecting the plotted points.
Identify and report the optimum moisture content and the maximum dry density. Make
sure that sheet, you have recorded the method of compaction used (e.g., Standard
Proctor, Method A) on data.
+ Test method: Standard Proctor
+ Sample: 100% soil, 3000grams.
 Water Content Determination:

ATP-55
Table 2.7: Result of compaction experiment (1)
Moisture can and lid number 1 2 3 4 5
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 14.63 14.51 14.44 14.52 14.3
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 25.79 26.24 30.82 27.91 30.45
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 24.5 24.56 28.36 25.67 27.61
MS = Mass of soil solids (g) 9.87 10.05 13.92 11.15 13.32
MW = Mass of pore water (g) 1.29 1.683 2.456 2.233 2.833
w = Water content, w% 13.07 16.74 17.64 20.02 21.27
 Density Determination:
Mold volume = 944 cm3
Table 2.8: Result of compaction experiment (2)
Compacted soil - Sample no 1 2 3 4 5
w = Assumed water content, % 10 13 16 18 20
Actual average water content, %
13.07 16.74 17.64 20.02 21.27
Mass of compacted soil and mold (g) 3566.09 3668.1 3670.22 3651.66 3628.61
7
Mass of mold (g) 1725.5 1725.5 1725.5 1725.5 1725.5
Wet mass of soil in mold (g) 1840.59 1942.6 1944.72 1926.16 1903.11
Wet density ,  , ( g / cm3 ) 1.95 2.05
7 2.06 2.04 2.016
Dry density , d , ( g / cm3 ) 1.748 1.793 1.792 1.748 1.715

ATP-55
1.810
Compaction test ( Soil )
1.80
1.790
Dry density (g/cm3)
1.780
1.770
1.760
1.750
1.740
1.730
1.720
1.710
12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content, w (%)
Figure 2.7: Result of compaction experiment

Optimum moisture content = 15.2 %
Maximum dry density = 1.78g/cm
2.1.5. Experiment 5: Atterberg’s limits
 Purpose:
This lab is performed to determine the plastic and liquid limits of a fine grained soil.
The liquid limit (LL) is arbitrarily defined as the water content, in percent, at which a
part of soil in a standard cup and cut by a groove of standard dimensions will flow
together at the base of the groove for a distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.) when subjected to 25
shocks from the cup being dropped 10 mm in a standard liquid limit apparatus operated
at a rate of two shocks per second. The plastic limit (PL) is the water content, in percent,
at which a soil can no longer be deformed by rolling into 3.2 mm (1/8in.) diameter
threads without crumbling.
ASTM D 4318 - Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index of Soils.
 Significance:
The Swedish soil scientist Albert Atterberg originally defined seven “limits of
consistency” to classify fine-grained soils, but in current engineering practice only two
of the limits, the liquid and plastic limits, are commonly used. (A third limit, called the

ATP-55
shrinkage limit, is used occasionally.) The Atterberg’s limits are based on the moisture
content of the soil. The plastic limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil
changes from a semi-solid to a plastic (flexible) state. The liquid limit is the moisture
content that defines where the soil changes from a plastic to a viscous fluid state. The
shrinkage limit is the moisture content that defines where the soil volume will not reduce
further if the moisture content is reduced. A wide variety of soil engineering properties
have been correlated to the liquid and plastic limits, and these Atterberg’s limits are also
used to classify a fine-grained soil according to the Unified Soil Classification system
or AASHTO system.
 Equipment:
Liquid limit device, Porcelain (evaporating) dish, Flat grooving tool with gage,
Eight moisture cans, balance, Glass plate, Spatula, Wash bottle filled with distilled
water, Drying oven set at 105°C.
Figure 2.8: Equipment of Atterberg’s Limits experiment.

 Test procedure:
 Liquid Limit:
(1) Take roughly 3/4 of the soil and place it into the porcelain dish. Assume that the soil
was previously passed through a 1mm-diameter sieve, air-dried, and then pulverized.
Thoroughly mix the soil with a small amount of distilled water until it appears as a

ATP-55
smooth uniform paste. Cover the dish with cellophane to prevent moisture from
escaping.
(2) Weigh four of the empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the respective
weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(3) Adjust the liquid limit apparatus by checking the height of drop of the cup. The
point on the cup that comes in contact with the base should rise to a height of 10 mm.
The block on the end of the grooving tool is 10 mm high and should be used as a gage.
Practice using the cup and determine the correct rate to rotate the crank so that the cup
drops approximately two times per second.
(4) Place a portion of the previously mixed soil into the cup of the liquid limit apparatus
at the point where the cup rests on the base. Squeeze the soil down to eliminate air pocket
sand spread it into the cup to a depth of about 10 mm at its deepest point. The soil pat
should form an approximately horizontal surface
(5) Use the grooving tool carefully cut a clean straight groove down the center of the
cup. The tool should remain perpendicular to the surface of the cup as groove is being
made. Use extreme care to prevent sliding the soil relative to the surface of the cup.
(6) Make sure that the base of the apparatus below the cup and the underside of the cup
is clean of soil. Turn the crank of the apparatus at a rate of approximately two drops per
second and count the number of drops, N, it takes to make the two halves of the soil pat
come into contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.). If the
number of drops exceeds 50, then go directly to step eight and do not record the number
of drops, otherwise, record the number of drops on the data sheet.
(7) Take a sample, using the spatula, from edge to edge of the soil pat. The sample
should include the soil on both sides of where the groove came into contact. Place the
soil into a moisture can cover it. Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the
soil, record it’s mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture
can in the oven for at least 16 hours. Place the soil remaining in the cup into the porcelain
dish. Clean and dry the cup on the apparatus and the grooving tool.
(8) Remix the entire soil specimen in the porcelain dish. Add a small amount of distilled
water to increase the water content so that the number of drops required to close the
groove decrease.

ATP-55
(9) Repeat steps six, seven, and eight for at least two additional trials producing
successively lower numbers of drops to close the groove. One of the trials shall be for a
closure requiring 25 to 35 drops, one for closure between 20 and 30 drops, and one
trial for a closure requiring 15 to 25 drops. Determine the water content from each trial
by using the same method used in the first laboratory. Remember to use the same balance
for all weighing.
 Plastic Limit:
(1) Weigh the remaining empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the respective
weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(2) Take the remaining 1/4 of the original soil sample and add distilled water until the
soil is at a consistency where it can be rolled without sticking to the hands.
(3) Form the soil into an ellipsoidal mass. Roll the mass between the palm or the fingers
and the glass plate. Use sufficient pressure to roll the mass into a thread of uniform
diameter by using about 90 strokes per minute. (A stroke is one complete motion of the
hand forward and back to the starting position.) The thread shall be deformed so that its
diameter reaches 3.2 mm (1/8 in.), taking no more than two minutes.
(4) When the diameter of the thread reaches the correct diameter, break the thread into
several pieces. Knead and reform the pieces into ellipsoidal masses and re-roll them.
Continue this alternate rolling, gathering together, kneading and re-rolling until the
thread crumbles under the pressure required for rolling and can no longer be rolled into
a 3.2 mm diameter thread.
(5) Gather the portions of the crumbled thread together and place the soil into a moisture
can, then cover it. If the can does not contain at least 6 grams of soil, add soil to the can
from the next trial (See Step 6). Immediately weigh the moisture can containing the soil,
record it’s mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven. Leave the moisture can
in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(6) Repeat steps three, four, and five at least two more times. Determine the water
content from each trial by using the same method used in the first laboratory. Remember
to use the same balance for all weighing
 Data Analysis:
 Liquid Limit:

ATP-55
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the liquid limit moisture cans after they have
been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Plot the number of drops, N, (on the log scale) versus the water content (w). Draw
the best-fit straight line through the plotted points and determine the liquid limit (LL) as
the water content at 25 drops.
 Plastic Limit:
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the plastic limit moisture cans after they have
been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Compute the average of the water contents to determine the plastic limit, PL. Check
to see if the difference between the water contents is greater than the acceptable range
of two results.
(3) Calculate the plasticity index, PI=LL-PL. Report the liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index to the nearest whole number, omitting the percent designation.
 Liquid Limit Determination:
Table 2.9: Result of Liquid Limit experiment
Sample no. 1 2 3 Mean
Moisture can and lid number a b c
MC = Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 24.88 14.35 14.41
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 38.65 25.14 26
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 35.24 22.45 23.09
MS = Mass of soil solids (g) 10.36 8.1 8.68
MW = Mass of pore water (g) 3.41 2.69 2.9
MW = Mass of pore water (g) 32.91 33.2 33.52 33.21
No. of drops (N) 31 27 18 25.33
Liquid Limit (LL)= Average w % = 33,2 %

ATP-55
 Plastic Limit Determination:

Table 2.10: Result of Plastic Limit experiment
Sample no. 1 2 Mean
Moisture can and lid number a b
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 36.03 38.88
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 31.14 33.27
MS = Mass of soil solids (g) 21.67 24.49

MW = Mass of pore water (g) 4.89 5.61
w = Water content, w % 22.57 22.93 22.75
Plastic Limit (PL)= Average w %= 22.75 %
33.6
33.5
33.4
Water content ( %)
33.3
33.2
33.1
33
32.9
32.8
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
No. of drops (N)
Figure 2.9: Result of Atterberg’s Limit experiment

 Final Results:
+ Liquid Limit (LL) = 33,2
+ Plastic Limit (PL) = 22,75

ATP-55
+ Plasticity Index (PI) = LL - PL= 33,2 - 22,75 = 10,45

 This is sandy clay soil
𝑊−𝑃𝐿 23,8−22,75
Liquid index (LI) = = ≈ 0,1 < 0,25
𝑃𝐼 10,45
Soil in the state of semi- solid soil.

2.1.6. Direct Shear Test.
 Purpose:
This test is performed to determine the consolidated -drained shear strength of a
sandy to silty soil. The shear strength is one of the most important engineering properties
of a soil, because it is required whenever a structure is dependent on the soil’s shearing
resistance. The shear strength is needed for engineering situations such as determining
the stability of slopes or cuts, finding the bearing capacity for foundations, and
calculating the pressure exerted by a soil on a retaining wall.
ASTM D 3080 -Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under
Consolidated Drained Conditions.
 Significance:
The direct shear test is one of the oldest strength tests for soils. In this laboratory, a
direct shear device will be used to determine the shear strength of a cohesion less soil
(i.e. angle of internal friction (f). From the plot of the shear stress versus the horizontal
displacement, the maximum shear stress is obtained for a specific vertical confining
stress. After the experiment is run several times for various vertical- confining stresses,
a plot of the maximum shear stresses versus the vertical (normal) confining stresses for
each of the tests is produced. From the plot, a straight -line approximation of the Mohr
-Coulomb failure envelope curve can be drawn and the shear strength can be computed
from the following equation:
s= 𝜎 tanf + c (eq.3.9)
where:
𝜎 is the normal stress (kPa)
f is the frictional angle (degree)
c is cohesion (kPa)
 Equipment:
ATP-55
Direct shear device, cylindrical container, knife.
Figure 2.10: Equipment of direct shear test.

 Test procedure:
(1) Carefully assemble the shear box and place it in the direct shear device. Then place a
porous stone and a filter paper in the shear box.
(2) Place the sand into the shear box and level off the top. Place a filter paper, a porous stone,
and a top plate (with ball) on top of the sand.
(3) Remove the large alignment screws from the shear box! Open the gap between the shear
box halves to approximately 0.025 in. using the gap screws, and then back out the gap screws.
(4) Complete the assembly of the direct shear device and initialize the three gauges
(Horizontal displacement gage, vertical displacement gage and shear load gage) to zero.

ATP-55
(5) Set the vertical load (or pressure) to a predetermined value, and then close bleeder valve
and apply the load to the soil specimen by raising the toggle switch.
(6) Start the motor with selected speed so that the rate of shearing is at a selected constant rate,
and take the horizontal displacement gauge. Record the readings on the data sheet.
(7) Continue taking readings until the horizontal shear load peaks and then falls.
Table 2.11: Result of direct shear experiment
Normal stress (kPa) R Co Shear stress τ (kPa)
50 38.5 1,812 69.76
100 62 1,812 112.34
150 89 1,812 161.27
180.00
100% Soil
160.00
140.00
120.00
Shear stress τ (kPa)
100.00
y = 0.9151x + 22.952
80.00
R² = 0.9984
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0 50 100 150 200
Normal stress (kPa)
Figure 2.11: Result of direct shear experiment

From the above chart, we figure out c = 22,95 (kPa) and f= 42,45°.

ATP-55
2.1.7. Experiment 7: Unconfined Compression Test

 Purpose:
This test is performed to determine the settlement of soil. Beside shear strength, settlement
is very important engineering properties of a soil. Under the pressure of the acting load and the
self-weight of soil, foundation will be deformed and the structures above the foundation is
settled. If the settlement of soil is distributed regularly, it will not make more stress acting on
the construction. Therefore, the construction is stronger by time when the engineer can
consolidate of the foundation.
ASTM D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for Laboratory-Prepared Samples
ASTM D 4429 Standard Test Method for Soils in Place in Field
 Significance:
Settlement is a necessary factor in consolidated foundation. In this laboratory, by recording
the force acting on the sample in the different transposition until the sample is broken then
multiply with 28Kn Force Coeficient equation:
𝝈 = (F x 25,598 + 49,293)/A (eq.10)
𝜋𝐷 2
𝐴= (eq.11)
4
The values will reflex the unconfined compressive strength

 Equipment:
CBR Bearing Ratio Test Machine

ATP-55
Figure 2.12: Equipment of unconfined compression experiment.

 Test procedure:
(1) Carefully put the sample into the CBR Bearing Ratio Test Machine.
(2) Put the Surcharge Weight on the top of sample.
(3) Set the Penetration Piston on top of Surcharge Weight while Proving Dual 28Kn
set near Penetration Piston to prepair for the test.
(4) Adjust the Penetration Dial - the Needel of Penetratration Dial has to be settled to
see the trasposition.
(5) Run the CBR Bearing Ratio Test Machine and record the force acting on the sample
at the different transposition point until the sample is broken

ATP-55
+ Diameter of Soil (D) = 100mm = 0.1m
+ Area of Soil (A) = 0.0314 m2
+ Length of Soil (L) = 130mm
Table 2.12: Result of unconfined compression experiment with displacement
calculate by millimeter
Displacement X Normal force Normal stress,𝝈
(mm) (point) (kN) (MPa)
0 0 0.05 1.57
0.32 32 0.87 27.66
0.64 57 1.51 48.04
0.96 80 2.1 66.79
1.28 99 2.58 82.28
1.6 102 2.66 84.72
1.92 failure failure failure
Table 2.13: Result of unconfined compression experiment with displacement

calculate by percentage
Axial strain (%) Normal stress,𝝈 (MPa)
0 1.57
0.2 27.66
0.5 48.04
0.7 66.79
1 82.28
1.2 84.72
1.5 failure

ATP-55
Unconfined Compression Test

of Soil
90.00
80.00
70.00
Normal stress,𝝈 (MPa)
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Axial strain (%)
Figure 2.13:Result of unconfined compression experiment

𝜎50 42.5
𝐸50 = = 0.42 = 101
𝜀
2.2. Physical and mechanical test for Soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement
2.2.1. Compaction test of soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement.
Take the sample soil with the mass of 3000g, then calculate the mass of fly ash and
𝟑𝟎𝟎𝟎.𝒑
cement added by the equation: 𝒎 = (eq. 3.10)
𝟏𝟎𝟎
Where:
m = the mass of fly ash added to soil
p = the percent of fly ash will be added.
a) Sample mixture: Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
 Water content determination:

ATP-55
Table 2.14: Water content of sample mixture: Soil+3% Cement+3% Fly Ash
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil

33.24 30.55 33.58 24.6 25.62
(g)
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil
31.19 28.57 30.9 23.02 23.79
(g)
w = Water content, w% 12.26 13.95 16.22 18.46 19.58
 Density determination:
Table 2.15: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
Actual average water content, % 12.26 13.95 16.22 18.46 19.58

Mass of compacted soil and mold
3675.0 3721.0 3774.0 3789.0 3788.0
(g)
Mass of mold (g) 1726.0 1726.0 1726.0 1726.0 1726.0
Wet mass of soil in mold (g) 1949.0 1995.0 2048.0 2063.0 2062.0
Wet density 2.065 2.113 2.169 2.185 2.184
Dry density 1.839 1.855 1.867 1.845 1.827

ATP-55
Compaction result
Compaction test ( Soil + 3% cement + 3 % Fly ash )

1.880
1.870
1.860
Dry density (g/cm3 )
1.850
1.840
1.830
1.820
1.810
1.800
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Water content (%)
Figure 2.14: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil +3% Cement + 3%
Fly Ash.
+ Optimum Moisture Content = 15.9 %
+ Maximum Dry Density = 1.868 g/cm3
b) Sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash
 Water content determination:
Table 2.16: Water content of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash
MCMS = Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 29.54 29.27 28.43 27.09 31.48
MCDS = Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 27.91 27.48 26.48 25.19 28.64
w = Water content, w% 12.07 14.09 16.18 18.04 20.43

ATP-55
 Density determination:
Table 2.17: Density of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash
Actual average water content, % 12.07 14.09 16.18 18.04 20.43
Mass of compacted soil and mold
3661 3711 3760.5 3789.7 3808.7
(g)
Mass of mold (g) 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726
Wet mass of soil in mold (g) 1935 1985 2034.5 2063.7 2082.7
Wet density 2.050 2.103 2.155 2.186 2.206
Dry density 1.829 1.843 1.855 1.852 1.832
 Compaction result:
Compaction test (Soil + 6 % Fly ash)
1.860
1.850
Dry density (g/cm3)
1.840
1.830
1.820
1.810
1.800
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content (%)
Figure 2.15: Result of compaction test of sample mixture: Soil + 6% Fly Ash.
+ Optimum Moisture Content = 16.8 %
+ Maximum Dry Density = 1.856 g/cm3

ATP-55
2.2.2. Experiment 2: Direct shear test of soil mixture Fly Ash and Cement.
Table 2.18: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash
Normal stress
(kPa) R Co Shear stress τ (kPa)
50 70 1,812 126.84
100 101 1,812 183.012
150 129 1,812 233.748
250
Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly ash
200
150
y = 1.069 x + 74.29
100
R² = 0.999
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal stress (kPa)
Figure 2.16: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 3% Cement and 3% Fly Ash
From the above chart, we figure out:
+ c = 74.29 ( kPa)
+ f

ATP-55
Table 2.19: Result of direct shear test of Soil mixture 6% Fly Ash
Normal stress
(kPa) R Co Shear stress τ (kPa)
50 39 1,812 70.668
100 65 1,812 117.78
150 90 1,812 163.08
180
Soil + 6% Fly Ash
160
140
120
100
80
60
y = 0.9241x + 24.764
R² = 0.9999
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal stress (kPa)
Figure 2.17: Result of direct shear test of soil mixture 6% Fly Ash
From the above chart, we figure out:
+ c = 24.76 ( kPa)
+ f
2.2.3. Experiment 3: Unconfined Compression Test


ATP-55
Table 2.20:Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly

Ash with displacement calculate by millimeter
Normal stress,𝝈
Displacement (mm) N Normal force (kN)
(MPa)
0 0 0.05 1.57
0.32 43 1.15 36.62
0.64 78 2.05 65.16
0.96 113 2.94 93.69
1.28 156 4.04 128.74
1.6 186 4.81 153.2
1.92 198 5.12 162.98
2.24 196 5.067 161.35
Table 2.21. Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 3% Cement + 3% Fly

Ash with displacement calculate by percentage
0 1.57
0.2 36.62
0.5 65.16
0.7 93.69
1 128.74
1.2 153.2
1.5 162.98
1.7 161.35

ATP-55

Soil + 3% Fly ash,3% Cement
180
160
140
120
100
𝐸50
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Axial Strain,ε (%)
Figure 2.18: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil

+ 3% Cement + 3% Fly Ash
𝜎50 85
𝐸50 = = 0.65 = 130
𝜀

displacement calculate by millimeter
Displacement Normal force Normal stress,𝝈
N
(mm) (kN) (MPa)
0 0 0.05 1.57
0.32 33 0.89 28.47
0.64 60 1.59 50.48
0.96 88 2.3 73.31
1.28 120 3.12 99.4
1.6 142 3.68 117.33
1.92 149 3.86 123.04
2.24 149 3.863 123.04

ATP-55
displacement calculate by percentage

0 1.57
0.2 28.47
0.5 50.48
0.7 73.31
1 99.4
1.2 117.33
1.5 123.04
2.24 123.04

140 Soil + 6% Fly ash
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Axial train (%)
Figure 2.19: Result of unconfined compression test of Soil + 6% Fly Ash
𝜎50 62
𝐸50 = = 0.65 = 95
𝜀

ATP-55
3. Result comparison and analysis.

3.1. Influence of fly ash and cement content on compaction properties (dry
density):
The result of the above experiments which are done with soil and soil mixture
are show in the table below:
Table 2.24:Comparison about compaction properties of 3 samples
Sample Optimum Moisture Dry Density,
Sample mixture
No. Content, % g/cm3
1 Soil 17.2 1.795
2 Soil + 6% Fly Ash 16.8 1.856
3 Soil + 3% Fly Ash, 3% Cement 15.9 1.868
17.5
Optimum Moisture Content, %
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
Soil Soil + 6% Fly Ash Soil + 3% Fly Ash,3%
Cement
Figure 2.20: Comparison about Optimum Moisture Content of 3 samples

ATP-55
1.88
Dry Density, g/cm3
1.86
1.84
1.82
1.8
1.78
1.76
1.74
Soil Soil + 6% Fly Ash Soil + 3% Fly Ash,3%
Cement
Figure 2.21: Comparison about Dry Density of 3 samples
The moisture-density relation from compaction test with soil mixture in different
percentages is present in the above table. According to these result, it can be observed
that with increasing coal fly ash contents, the optimum moisture contents decreased the
maximum dry unit weight of the soil increased. The dry unit weight of soil grew most
in the mixture of 3% fly ash and 3% cement. 6% fly ash also rose the unit weight of the
soil but it is less than the mixture of fly ash and cement.
3.2. The influence of fly ash and cement content on shear strength and
cohesion:
The results of direct shear test with soil and soil mixture are summarized in the
tables below:

ATP-55
Table 2.25:Comparison about shear strength of 3 samples

Normal Soil + Soil + 3% Fly Ash
100% Soil
stress (kPa) 6% Fly Ash + 3% Cement
Shear stress τ 50 69.76 70.668 126.84
(kPa) 100 112.34 117.78 183.012
150 161.27 163.08 233.748
Figure 2.22: Comparison about Shear stress of 3 samples
Table 2.26:Comparison about cohesion and friction anggle of 3 samples

Soil + 3% Fly Ash +
100% Soil Soil + 6% Fly Ash
3% Cement
Cohesion, c (kPa) 22.95 24.76 74.29
Friction angle (o)   

ATP-55
80
70
100% Soil
60 Soil + 6% Fly Ash

Soil + 3% Fly Ash,3% Cement
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cohesion, c (kPa) Friction angle (degree)
Figure 2.23: Comparison about both Cohesion and Friction angle of 3 samples
According to the figure 2.22, the shear strength of the soil increased most in
3% Fly Ash + 3% Cement sample. In addition, the shear strength of non-
reinforced soil and the mixture of soil and fly ash are similar. Reinforced soil
samples usually have better ductility than non-reinforced soil. It turns out that the
outside coating destruction is not linear with the percentage of reinforcement
material is added.
In the figure 2.23, the combination of soil, 3% fly ash and 3% cement
reflexed a good cohesion when it is approximately three times bigger than the
values of two other samples. On the other hand, the friction angle of three samples
is quite the same.
3.3. The influence of fly ash and cement content on unconfined
compressive strength:
The result of the above experiments which are done with soil and soil
mixture are show in the figure below:

ATP-55

180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
Soil + 6% Fly ash
100.00
80.00 Soil + 3% Fly ash + 3%

Cement
60.00 100% Soil
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Axial train (%)
Figure 2.24: Comparison about unconfined compression of 3 samples.

As can be seen from the figure, the non-reinforced soil has the shortest displacement before
it is broken while the mixture samples have larger displacement. On the other hand, the figure
reflex that non-reinforced soil can sustain the smallest normal stress compare to the other
mixture. The sample of soil, fly ash, cement accept the highest normal, and it is about 40kPa
higher than the sample of soil and fly ash and two times higher than 100% soil sample.
From these results, it highly recomment to use the mixture of fly ash and cement to improve
the strength of soil.
3.3. The comparision between research result and the other researches in the
world.
In Jayakumar and Lau Chee Sing’s experiment, the researcher used the mixture of soil, 3%
fly ash, and 3% cement and the mixture of soil and 6% fly ash. The results of strength
improvement displayed by 6% soil-fly ash treatment are lowest as compared to soil-cement
stabilization. The unconfined compressive strength at 3, 7 and 15 days are 6.9MPa, 11.1MPA
and 14.7MPa. The class F fly ash shows very little self hardening property without the presence
of cement. For the soil treated with of 3% cement and 3% fly ash, the unconfined compressive
strength at 3, 7 and 15 days are 47.0MPa, 64.8MPA and 82.3MPa. Significant strength
enhancement is clearly visible.

ATP-55
In the Emmanuel Akintunde Okunade’s research, the author added 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%,
10.0%, 12.5% and 15.0% fly ash class F to soil. It was observed that with increasing coal fly
ash contents, the optimum moisture contents decreased (from an average of about 15.8% to an
average of about 9.7% when comparing the values at 0% and 12.5% coal fly ash contents) while
the maximum dry densities increased (from an average of about 1920 kg/m3 to an average of
about 2180 kg/m3 when comparing the values at 0% and 12.5% coal fly ash contents). Beside,
after considering all the other stabilization factors, he assumed that an overall optimum coal fly
ash content by weight for the stabilization of lateritic soils is 12.5%. This is comparable to
values recommended by other investigators, though for different soil types.
In general, the combination of soil, cement and fly ash rise the physical and mechanical
behaviour of the soil in compaction, shear strength, unconfined compressive strength and some
other factors that this research had not mentioned yet.
3.4. Result explanation.
As can be seen from the results of the tests, fly ash and cement increased the compaction,
shear strength, unconfined compressive strength of soil. The reason for this raise is the
hydration reaction of cement inside the mixture or the chemical reaction of CaO.SiO2, C3A
and C3S with water born new materials which make the physical and mechanical of soil
increase. In addition, the class F fly ash shows very little self hardening property without the
presence of cement

ATP-55
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
1. Conclusion.
The objective of this research was to define how fly ash and cement affect to
soil behaviors before and after the reinforcement. There are some conclusion can
be named as below. First of all, according to the compaction test result, the
sample of soil, cement and fly ash has the most increasing in the dry unit weight.
In addition, fly ash also can improve the dry unit weight of soil but it is less than
the mixture of cement and fly ash. Second, in the shear test, the different levels
of the reinforced samples and non-reinforced sample are huge and these different
can be clearly seen when compare the cohesion of fly ash and cement is three
times bigger than soil. Last but not least, the mixture of fly ash could take a largest
stress with the smallest amount of displacement. On the other hand, soil could
not carry a stress more than 90kPa and it was broken at around 1,25%
displacement. In brief, the combination of soil, fly ash and cement bring the best
results in all the tests. The mixture of soil and fly ash came second in general.
Therefore, it can be assume that the reinforced soil samples have better ductility
than non-reinforced soil in this situation.
2. Recommendation.
Base on the conclusion, the mixing of soil with cement and fly ash show a
good increasing in dry unit weight, shear strength and unconfined compressive
strength. For this reason, it is suitable to use this combination as an additive for
soil reinforcement. It also draw a new way to handle with the huge amount of
waste from the thermal power station which can solve a lot of environment
problems and save a lot of money for fly ash treatment.
Furthermore, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X-ray Diffraction
(XRD) should be conducted to find out the necessary criteria for the application of the
mixture of soil, fly ash and cement. This combination also should be tested with
difference percentage to find the most effective amount to create the new mixture

ATP-55
material which has better physical and mechanical behaviors to satisfy the requirements
in construction.

ATP-55
REFERENCES
Acosta,H.A.,Edil,T.B.,and Benson,C.H.(2003). “Soil stabilization and drying using

fly ash.” Geo Engineering Rep. No. 03-03, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
ASTM C109 - Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement
Mortars
ASTM C151 - Standard Test Method for Autoclave Expansion of Hydraulic Cement
ASTM C311 - Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Fly Ash or Natural
Pozzolans for Use in Portland-Cement Concrete
ASTM C618 - Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural
Pozzolan for Use in Concrete
ASTM D 2216 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures.
ASTM D 2937-00 – Standard Test for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive- Cylinder
Method.
ASTM D 422 - Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.
ASTM D 698 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction. Characteristics of
Soil Using Standard Effort (600 Kn-m/m3).
ASTM D 1557 - Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
Soil Using Modified Effort (2,700 Kn-m/m3).
ASTM D 4318 - Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils.
ASTM D 3080 -Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under
Consolidated Drained Conditions.
ASTM D 1883-05 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory-Prepared Samples
ASTM D 4429 Standard Test Method for Soils in Place in Field
Bin-Shafique, S., Edil,T., Benson, C., and Senol, A.(2004). “Incorporating a fly ash
stabilized layer into pavement design—Case study.”Proc. ICE Geotech. Eng.,
157(4), 239–249.

ATP-55
Federal Highway Administration (2003). “Fly ash facts for highway engineers.”
Technical Rep. FHWA-IF-03019, 4th Ed., Washington, DC.
Ferguson,G.(1993).“Use of self-cementing fly ash esasa soil stabilization agent.” Fly
ash for soil improvement (GSP 36), ASCE, New York.
Hampton, M. B., and Edil, T. B. (1998). “Strength gain of organic ground with
cement-type binders.” Soil improvement for big digs (GSP 81) ASCE, Reston, VA,
135–148.
Kaniraj, S. R., and Havanagi, V. G. (1999). “Compressive strength of cement
stabilized fly ash-soil mixtures.” Cem. Concr. Res., 29, 673–677.
Keshawarz,M. S., and Dutta, U. (1993). “Stabilization of south Texas soils with fly
ash.”Fly ash for soil improvement (GSP36), ASCE, NewYork, 30–42.
Ministry of Construction’s Resources (2010) - Reproduce and use fly ash and slag
from the thermal power plants in Vietnam. Available at:
http://www.xaydung.gov.vn/
Prabakar, J., Dendorkar, N., and Morchale, R. K. (2004). “Influence of fly ash on
strength behavior of typical soils.” Constr. Build. Mater., 18(4), 263–267.
Parsons, R. L., and Kneebone, E. (2005). “Field performance of fly ash stabilized
subgrades.” Ground Improv., 9(1), 33–38.
Trzebiatowski, B. D., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2005). “Case study of subgrade
stabilization using fly ash: State Highway 32, Port Washington, Wisconsin.”
Recycled materials in geotechnics (GSP 127), ASCE, Reston, VA, 123–136.
TCNB 03: 2009 - Determination of Thiophanate Methyl content
TCVN 7131: 2002 - Clay - Method for Chemical Analysis
TCVN 6882: 2001 - Standard Mineral Admixture for Cement

NCKH

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

NCKH

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ATP-55

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

SINCERE THANK YOU!

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG i

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG ii

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG iii

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG iv

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG v

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

INFORMATION FOR THE RESEARCH RESULT OF SUBJECT

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG vi

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

Supervisor's remark for the scientific contributions of students, who execute

Dr. Nguyen Thanh Sang

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG vii

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

UNIVERSITY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

Nguyen The Vinh

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG viii

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

Aim and objective.

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 1

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 2

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 3

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

generating units. The other boilers are more common at industrial or

Figure 1.1:Fly Ash particles at 2,000x magnification.

When used as a mineral admixture in concrete, fly ash is classified as either

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 4

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

Firgure 1.2: Typical ash colors.

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 5

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

4. Fly Ash in Vietnam.

1 2005 1.450 4,35 1,30 - 1,52

2 2010 4.250 12,75 3,82 - 4,46

4 2020 7.240 21,72 6,51 - 7,60

4.2. Application of fly ash in Vietnam.

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 6

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 7

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

Figure 2.1.Fly ash in Vinh Tan

SiO2 55,66 55,53

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

Specific gravity (g/cm3) TCVN 3,1

Specific surface Blaine (cm2/g) TCVN 3380

Table 2.3: Chemical components of But Son PC40’s cement

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 Na2O K2 O

Table 2.4: Mineral components of But Son PC40’s cement

SUPERVISOR: DR. NGUYEN THANH SANG 9

STUDENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 2018

Figure 2.1: Soil sample collection site

Kaolinit + Clorit 5–7

Gơtit – Fe2O3.H2O 1–2